SECOND AMENDMENT - What do you think?

This is a discussion on SECOND AMENDMENT - What do you think? within the Open Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; SECOND AMENDMENT - What do you think?
AP reports: Man with AK-47-style gun in park not helpful to gun rights agenda
Gunman vowings to continue ...

If the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them.--Samuel Adams as Candidus, Boston Gazette 20 Jan. 1772

Originally Posted by Pro2A
I've open carried a rifle before. Does that make me a nut? A right not exercised is a right lost. Don't forget that.

Originally Posted by Thanis

Or, it is over the top and could lead greater restrictions.

Just because it is legal does not make it a good idea.

Bingo. Makes a case for those who would like to portray us as dangerous and crazy. People like this are not simply exercising a right, they are jeopardizing our rights by adding fuel to the anti gun arguments.

I've open carried a rifle before. Does that make me a nut? A right not exercised is a right lost. Don't forget that.

I suspect you did not do so in the same manner he did. We didn't read about your doing so in the news, did we?

Your point is well taken, but those of us who know him from several other boards are not surprised that he did this, and we will not be surprised (but will likely be chagrined) by the next stunt he pulls. And believe me, this was a stunt.

If the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them.--Samuel Adams as Candidus, Boston Gazette 20 Jan. 1772

I've open carried a rifle before. Does that make me a nut? A right not exercised is a right lost. Don't forget that.

No it doesn't make you a nut, but to the Anti's it might appear as such and those anti's do vote.
While both may be legal and both may not present a threat, there could well be a different perception of someone with a holstered handgun and someone with a rifle or shotgun in their hands. (or on their shoulder)

Ellen Thomas told WSMV-TV she was hiking an upper trail when she encountered 37-year-old Leonard Embody wearing a camouflage jacket, military boots and a black skull cap. She called the encounter "scary."

State Department of Environment and Conservation spokeswoman Tisha Calabrese-Benton said Embody was detained by park rangers because his weapon looked like a rifle.

After the gun was secured and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives personnel were called, Embody was released without charges because he has a handgun carry permit.

Calabrese-Benton said the gun had no stock and the barrel was under 11 inches, however state attorneys are still investigating whether the AK-47-style pistol, with a 30-round magazine, is legal to carry as a handgun.

The state legislature passed a law earlier this year allowing people with handgun permits to carry their weapons in parks.

John Pierce is a co-founder of OpenCarry.org, a group that seeks to normalize the open carry of "properly holstered handguns" as people go about their lives.

"On a fundamental level, I don't think he did anything wrong," Pierce said of Embody, "but politically that might not be best thing to do and it's not something we're advocating for."

Pierce said wearing camouflage also perpetuates an unhelpful stereotype.

Pierce said he lived in Bristol, Va., for years, right on Tennessee border. He said he has openly carried a holstered, normal-sized handgun in Tennessee numerous times and never had anyone complain about it.

Lets anlyze this article a bit before I blow some of these ridiculously misinformed comments out of the water.

-- A man carrying an AK-47-style semiautomatic pistol was detained at Radnor Lake State Park on Sunday after startled hikers complained to park rangers.

I guess the fact that it was hunting season, possibly even deer season my have been lost on them.

Ellen Thomas told WSMV-TV she was hiking an upper trail when she encountered 37-year-old Leonard Embody wearing a camouflage jacket, military boots and a black skull cap. She called the encounter "scary."

Hmmm. Somebody ignorant of the law is scared. So what? The burden of proof is on them, not the bearer of the scary,evil looking AK.

State Department of Environment and Conservation spokeswoman Tisha Calabrese-Benton said Embody was detained by park rangers because his weapon looked like a rifle.

Duh. Detained for carrying a gun. Great. Detained become someone thought it was scary.

After the gun was secured and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives personnel were called, Embody was released without charges because he has a handgun carry permit.

Released without charges. Of course. He was carrying a legal pistol, not much different than carrying a AR pistol. No stock, a barrel length that dosent exceed 16 inches. The ATF checked it, it was good to go, and they released him,further proof that what he was doing was legal.

Calabrese-Benton said the gun had no stock and the barrel was under 11 inches, however state attorneys are still investigating whether the AK-47-style pistol, with a 30-round magazine, is legal to carry as a handgun.

More clueless people. The ATF released him. If the ATF would have thought for a second that the man violated ANY state laws, they would have called the local authorities. They did not. They check for violations of both State and Federal law. Its the very reason that ATF has agents in each state.Those agents are familiar with state law.

The state legislature passed a law earlier this year allowing people with handgun permits to carry their weapons in parks.

Here is what the sheep generally dont understand. If there is no law prohibiting someone carrying an AK handgun, then it is legal.

"On a fundamental level, I don't think he did anything wrong," Pierce said of Embody, "but politically that might not be best thing to do and it's not something we're advocating for."

Pierce said wearing camouflage also perpetuates an unhelpful stereotype.

I personally dont give a rip about what someone elses thinks of my activity. If its legal, they have no say. If they are scared, that is their problem, not mine.

Weak minded people only exist because of people better than them. Weak people do not make change.
Wearing camoflage? You've got to be kidding. Go to any town in the South during deer season and you'll see more people wearing camoflage than not.

Uugh. Makes us all look like morons, even if he WAS within his rights.

In your opinion. That sort of mindset is exactly why some people perceive it as an issue.

He was within his rights.

He was legal.

There is a HUGE difference between what you have the right to do and what you should do.

This might be the move of someone trying to interfere with our rights by being a bad example!

Nope. Read the article. The man is active in the open carry movement. At least he has the stones to do it. Maybe when more people pick up on and exercise that right, people will quit being scared.

No, I don't think so...we here in Tennessee know him from several other boards from which he has also been banned (the number grows constantly). He is simply a very immature "adult."

Thats what Rosa Parks was told by some of her "folks". Just sit in the back and be quiet. Don't make any waves. How does it look to everyone else. She heard it all.
Because she had the courage to act, things changed.
"immature adult"?. Not hardly. The man knew exactly what he was doing.

I've open carried a rifle before. Does that make me a nut? A right not exercised is a right lost. Don't forget that.

I haven't. Unlike some here that haven't figured it out yet.

Or, it is over the top and could lead greater restrictions.
Just because it is legal does not make it a good idea

Theres that former anti-gun northern mentality again. It "could" lead to greater restrictions. You "could" get run over by a concrete truck when crossing the road. Will that keep you from crossing the road? Why is this any different?

Your point is well taken, but those of us who know him from several other boards are not surprised that he did this, and we will not be surprised (but will likely be chagrined) by the next stunt he pulls. And believe me, this was a stunt

.

It worked.
History is not changed by sitting at the house typing on a BB. It's changed by getting up and doing something.
It made it to the national news. A few dozen men shooting at the most powerful army in the world in the state of Massachusetts was called a "stunt" by the British."
Stunts are made to get attention. His worked well. He did it with a legal handgun. He did it open carrying. Legally.

Sounds like another useful idiot for the Brady Bunch cause.

The Brady Bunch thinks we are all idiots for carrying guns. This wont change a thing.

No it doesn't make you a nut, but to the Anti's it might appear as such and those anti's do vote

.

If we worried about how Anti's voted we would have lost the right to own a gun long before now. I don't worry about or care what they think. Why do you?

While both may be legal and both may not present a threat, there could well be a different perception of someone with a holstered handgun and someone with a rifle or shotgun in their hands. (or on their shoulder)

There is a different perception. He has an evil looking AK pistol. OH MY GOD.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Gun-owners are our own worst enemies. Like the general population, they aren't smart enough to realize if we don't quit the petty differences and hold the ground against ANY infringement, eventually we wont have to worry about it.

What the man doing was legal.

If we don't get on the OFFENSE and quit playing DEFENSE, just how are we supposed to WIN?

Personally, I believe that, if anything, Mr. Pierce did more damage than Mr. Embody...and I so stated in response to Mr. Pierce on his forum.

As a "spokesman" for the OC "movement", he played into the antis idea that, if exercising a right frightens anyone who does not understand it, then that right either should not exist or should not be exercised.

As a "spokesman" for the OC "movement", he played into the antis idea that, if exercising a right frightens anyone who does not understand it, then that right either should not exist or should not be exercised.

Which of course, is completly wrong.

Why should we cater to the ignorant?
Progress is not made by doing so.

When you fight a battle, you use the ignorance of the enemy to your advantage, you exploit it and use it make gains.

We are in a battle, but its not just with the anti's. The battle is as much with people that call themselves "progun",but havent thought about the issue in depth, because they still dont see the big picture. The big picture is not hard to see, in fact it is suprisingly simple.

Thats what Rosa Parks was told by some of her "folks". Just sit in the back and be quiet. Don't make any waves. How does it look to everyone else. She heard it all.
Because she had the courage to act, things changed.
"immature adult"?. Not hardly. The man knew exactly what he was doing.

"Knowing what you are doing" in no way disqualifies one to be immature.

If the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them.--Samuel Adams as Candidus, Boston Gazette 20 Jan. 1772